IESET.
Hypotheses·growth·japan_miti_success_then_stagnation_panel

Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) era (1960-1985) produced positive catch-up productivity growth through technology licensing coordination and scale economies, but Japan's post-1990 stagnation is associated with protected domestic sectors, zombie lending to inefficient incumbents, and weak product-market competition.

The post-1990 TFP growth slowdown is larger than can be explained by demographics or macroeconomic deflation alone, after controlling for initial income, human capital, and global demand conditions. The claim applies to Japan 1960-2020 with cross-country comparator benchmarking.

INCONCLUSIVEengine/runs/japan_miti_success_then_stagnation_panel

INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment 'miti_era_indicator' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

confidence cueResult card produced; verdict unclassified.

policy briefCoverage too thin

In ordinary language

Over a long period, do more market-oriented institutions translate into higher income or productivity, once the comparison looks beyond a single success story?

plain answer

This test cannot make a firm call yet. treatment 'miti_era_indicator' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

why it matters

Growth claims can look convincing in single success stories. This test asks whether the pattern survives a broader comparison.

how the test works

It compares 6 country or place units from 1960 to 2020, using a panel fe design, with fixed effects for country and year.

what was measured
What changed
  • Miti era indicator
  • Post 1990 protection indicator
What we checked
  • Productivity growth
  • Manufacturing productivity growth
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

0 input datasets, 0 unresolved missing series, provenance status: no input vintages recorded.

Results

engine/runs/japan_miti_success_then_stagnation_panel
1007550250196019902020JPNKORTWNDEUUSAGBR
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show tfp_growth across 6 sampled countries over 1960–2020.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for japan_miti_success_then_stagnation_panel. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/japan_miti_success_then_stagnation_panel/chart_data.json.

Pre-registration

pre-registered
first-spec commit 5ce4495 · 2026-05-02T19:11:20Z
run generated · 2026-06-29T17:52:53Z

Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) era (1960-1985) produced positive catch-up productivity growth through technology licensing coordination and scale economies, but Japan's post-1990 stagnation is associated with protected domestic sectors, zombie lending to inefficient incumbents, and weak product-market competition. The post-1990 TFP growth slowdown is larger than can be explained by demographics or macroeconomic deflation alone, after controlling for initial income, human capital, and global demand conditions. The claim applies to Japan 1960-2020 with cross-country comparator benchmarking.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

The hypothesis is falsified if Japan's post-1990 TFP growth is statistically indistinguishable from Germany's or the USA's after controlling for demographics and macro shocks, or if the MITI-era coefficient is negative and significant (p < 0.10) in the panel.

formal test & threshold
test:      panel_fe_japan_miti_vs_stagnation_1960_2020
threshold: [object Object]

Method

Template
panel_fe
Fixed effects
country, year
Clustering
country
Sample
6 countries · 1960 – 2020
Evidence type
associational

Panel fixed-effects with structural-break dummies for Japan sub-periods.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
tfp_growth
outcome
pwt:rtfpnatier 3
log_diff_5y
manufacturing_tfp_growth
outcome
oecd_stan:manufacturing_tfptier 5
log_diff_5y
miti_era_indicator
treatment
constructed:japan_miti_active_1960_1985tier 5
indicator
post_1990_protection_indicator
treatment
oecd_pmr:barriers_to_entrytier 4
level
zombie_lending_share
treatment
constructed:boj_fsr_zombie_firm_proxytier 5
level
log_gdp_per_capita
control
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
log
human_capital_index
control
pwt:hctier 3
level
trade_openness
control
world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZStier 2
level
old_age_dependency_ratio
control
world_bank_wdi:SP.POP.DPND.OLtier 2
level

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — japan_miti_success_then_stagnation_panel

Verdict: INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment 'miti_era_indicator' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) era (1960-1985) produced positive catch-up productivity growth through technology licensing coordination and scale economies, but Japan's post-1990 stagnation is associated with protected domestic sectors, zombie lending to inefficient incumbents, and weak product-market competition. The post-1990 TFP growth slowdown is larger than can be explained by demographics or macroeconomic deflation alone, after controlling for initial income, human capital, and global demand conditions. The claim applies to Japan 1960-2020 with cross-country comparator benchmarking.
  • Falsification rule: The hypothesis is falsified if Japan's post-1990 TFP growth is statistically indistinguishable from Germany's or the USA's after controlling for demographics and macro shocks, or if the MITI-era coefficient is negative and significant (p < 0.10) in the panel.
  • Falsification test: panel_fe_japan_miti_vs_stagnation_1960_2020

Estimate

  • Error: treatment 'miti_era_indicator' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

Variables resolved

  • pwt:rtfpna → tfp_growth (outcome, publisher=pwt, n=6407)
  • constructed:japan_miti_active_1960_1985 → miti_era_indicator (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=366)
  • oecd_pmr:barriers_to_entry → post_1990_protection_indicator (treatment, publisher=oecd_pmr, n=105)
  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KD → log_gdp_per_capita (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=12104)
  • pwt:hc → human_capital_index (controls, publisher=pwt, n=8637)
  • world_bank_wdi:NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS → trade_openness (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=10714)
  • world_bank_wdi:SP.POP.DPND.OL → old_age_dependency_ratio (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=16935)

Variables missing data

  • oecd_stan:manufacturing_tfp (outcome, name=manufacturing_tfp_growth) — vintage not on disk
  • constructed:boj_fsr_zombie_firm_proxy (treatment, name=zombie_lending_share) — vintage not on disk

Generated by scripts/run_panel_fe.py at 2026-06-29T17:52:53+00:00

Strongest opposing argument

Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.

Notes

Japan's post-1990 experience is confounded by the asset-price bubble burst, balance-sheet repair, and demographic headwinds. The claim isolates the policy-channel contribution by comparing with Germany, which faced similar demographics but different competition policy.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.